FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLANT,
v.
BARNEY EVAN BROWN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the state's appeal was timely because the order did not discharge the prisoner, thus tolling the appeal period.
The Parole Commission appealed an order granting a habeas corpus petition that found due process violations in parole revocation. The appellee moved t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.110(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the Parole Commission from an order entered on appellee’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appealed order finds that appellee’s due process rights were violated when his parole was revoked and permits the Commission to complete the revocation proceeding provided appellee is represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings.
The appealed order was entered on January 21,1986, and the commission moved for rehearing ten days later. The motion was denied on March 6, 1986, and the notice of appeal was filed on April 4,1986. Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the basis of his contention that the appeal is brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(F), and therefore, under Rule 9.140(c)(2), the notice was required to be filed within 15 days of rendition of the order. We disagree.
Rule 9.140(e)(1)(F) authorizes appeals by the state from orders “discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus”. Although the appealed order was entered on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it did not discharge the prisoner. Therefore, Rule 9.140 does not apply. Generally, ha-beas corpus proceedings are civil in nature. State v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1966). As such, the motion for rehearing tolled rendition of the final order and appellant had 30 days after disposition of the motion for rehearing to file its notice of appeal. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530; Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g); Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ought to obtain belated appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The remedy of habeas corpus is civil in nature. See, generally, State v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1966); Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Brown, 499 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Snelson and Dempsey likewise arose from underlying civil proceedings. Where the proceedings below are civil in nature, this court lacks the authority to grant a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.14…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Joel N. LEE v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1966)